Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: realising impact

Abstract

Through changes in policy and practice, the inherent intent of the ecosystem services (ES) concept is to safeguard ecosystems for human wellbeing. While impact is intrinsic to the concept, little is known about how and whether ES science leads to impact. Evidence of impact is needed. Given the lack of consensus on what constitutes impact, we differentiate between attributional impacts (transitional impacts on policy, practice, awareness or other drivers) and consequential impacts (real, on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity, ES, ecosystem functions and human wellbeing) impacts. We conduct rigorous statistical analyses on three extensive databases for evidence of attributional impact (the form most prevalently reported): the IPBES catalogue (n = 102), the Lautenbach systematic review (n = 504) and a 5-year in-depth survey of the OPERAs Exemplars (n = 13). To understand the drivers of impacts, we statistically analyse associations between study characteristics and impacts. Our findings show that there exists much confusion with regard to defining ES science impacts, and that evidence of attributional impact is scarce: only 25% of the IPBES assessments self-reported impact (7% with evidence); in our meta-analysis of Lautenbach's systematic review, 33% of studies provided recommendations indicating intent of impacts. Systematic impact reporting was imposed by design on the OPERAs Exemplars: 100% reported impacts, suggesting the importance of formal impact reporting. The generalised linear models and correlations between study characteristics and attributional impact dimensions highlight four characteristics as minimum baseline for impact: study robustness, integration of policy instruments into study design, stakeholder involvement and type of stakeholders involved. Further in depth examination of the OPERAs Exemplars showed that study characteristics associated with impact on awareness and practice differ from those associated with impact on policy: to achieve impact along specific dimensions, bespoke study designs are recommended. These results inform targeted recommendations for ES science to break its impact glass ceiling.

Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe

“…Knowledge gaps as well as practical obstacles can create bottlenecks (Lautenbach et al 2019;Metzger et al 2019). A lack of standardised research methods or reporting guidelines can make it difficult to compare projects, identify trends and make recommendations (Patenaude et al 2019). This makes it difficult for decision-makers to know where to focus funding, which behaviours to encourage and how to give guidance on best practice (Rounsevell and Metzger 2018).…”

“…This makes it difficult for decision-makers to know where to focus funding, which behaviours to encourage and how to give guidance on best practice (Rounsevell and Metzger 2018). There are now many tools and methods that have been tested in real-world situations, to support decision-making in applying the ES concept (Patenaude et al 2019). However, tools and methods alone are not enough to encourage better ecosystem management.…”

“…However, tools and methods alone are not enough to encourage better ecosystem management. There is also a need to provide access to these tools and to foster their use through co-learning, knowledge exchange and applications in practice, which is achievable through active stakeholder dialogue (Patenaude et al 2019;Schoonover et al 2019) and more overarching communities of practice (Metzger et al 2019). The OPERAs project worked with nine Table 1 Examples of tools used to weigh up trade-offs in ecosystem management…”

“…Between 2012 and 2017, the European Commission funded the OPERAs project (Operationalising Ecosystem Research Applications) to explore how and under what conditions the ES concept can move beyond the academic domain towards practical implementation in support of sustainable decisionmaking and ecosystem management (Ainscough et al 2019). OPERAs co-produced a diversity of approaches in twelve 'exemplar' case studies across a range of ecosystems (Patenaude et al 2019;Schoonover et al 2019;Walz et al 2019): Swiss Alps, French Alps, Scotland, Barcelona, the Lower Danube, the Montado region, Dublin, Mediterranean agriculture, the Balearic islands, global, Pan-Europe and the wine sector (see Fig. 2).…”

“…1. Review and synthesise knowledge gaps, user needs and best practices (Lautenbach et al 2019;Patenaude et al 2019) 2. Increase knowledge and understanding to support policy and decision-making (Lee et al 2019a;Liski et al 2019a) 3.…”